Devinder Gupta, J.—Plaintiffs have come up in appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 26th July, 1989 by Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamsala, allowing the defendants appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs suit, thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed on 5th April, 1986, by Sub-Judge First Class, Dehra. by which the suit of the plaintiffs had been decreed. The appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:

1. Whether the gift deed executed by Chinti by a registered gift deed completed the gift and became binding on Smt. Chinti and the defendant?

2. Whether the gift could not be complete unless it was coupled with delivery of possession though it was executed and registered by the donee?

3. Whether the defendant could set up the plea of adverse possession, when the title was claimed on the basis of Will of Chinti?

2. Decree for declaration as regards their title and regarding entries in the revenue record was claimed by the plaintiffs with consequential relief of injunction and in the alternative for possession. Foundation for the claim was laid by alleging that Chinti owned and possessed the suit property, who on 21st April, 1949, gifted the same in favour of Mansa Ram, the father of the plaintiffs. The gift was duly given effect to in the revenue record when mutation thereupon was duly attested and ever since Mansa Ram, their father had been coming in continuous possession of the property as an owner and on his death, they rightly inherited the property as his heirs. They questioned the correctness of the entries by alleging that Smt. Chinti was not in occupation of the property and her name had erroneously been recorded as a tenant. She was never inducted as a tenant. The defendant had now started claiming himself to be the legatee, on the basis of some oral Will, alleged to have been made in his favour by Chinti. Neither Chinti had any subsisting title to the suit property, nor the alleged Will, if any, made by her could affect the plaintiffs right over the property. Thus the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved had no option but to protect their rights by filing the suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant by alleging that the suit land was owned and possessed by Chinti and she continued to be its owner till her death, where after he had succeeded to her estate, on the basis of a Will executed by her. The defendant denied that Chinti made any gift in favour of plaintiffs father. It was also pleaded that in case any gift deed is found to have been executed, the same was neither acted upon, nor possession was delivered to the donee and since Chinti was in possession of the property, she must be presumed to be the owner. It was pleaded in the alternative that in case gift is found to have been made, Chinti was in occupation of the property as a tenant and in case the tenancy is not proved, Chinti was in possession of the property continuously in assertion of her right as an owner to the knowledge of all concerned, which possession of her had ripened into full ownership thereby extinguishing all rights, title and interest of the plaintiff, if any. The parties were taken to trial on the following issues:

1. Whether the suit is within time? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action? OPP

6. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPP

7. Whether Smt. Chinti executed a valid gift in favour of pre-decessor-in-interest of the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP

8. Whether Smt. Chinti was not a tenant under the plaintiff? OPP

9. In case previous issue is proved in negative, whether Smt. Chinti executed a valid will in favour of the defendants, if so to what effect? OPP

10. Whether Smt. Chinti had become owner by way of adverse possession, if so to what effect? OPD

4. The original d